[sc34wg3] Strawman draft of ISO 13250-1
Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:16:03 +0100
I feel like I am in those who have not understood :(
Do I have to understand then that my (long) today post about subject
identification was off-topic and will not even be discussed?
> I'd like to repeat this, since it seems that nobody's understood what
> Steve meant. What is being sought is *not* comments on the substance
> of the document, because that is intended to be pure duplication of
> what's in TMDM anyway.
> What *is* being sought is comments on this particular editorial
> solution. That is, what do we want part 1 to do, and what do we want
> part 2 to do? Should we define "subject" in part 1 or in part 2, or
> (heaven forbid) both? Should part 1 just be a guide to 13250? Should
> it also include a topic map tutorial? Should that tutorial be
My suggestion was that Part 1 should let the door open to other subject
identification mechanisms than the particular ones defined in Part 2
(TMDM). Is that off-scope?
> If you want to comment on the substance, please read TMDM and comment on
The passage I commented in Part 1 is found nowhere in TMDM as far as I can
tell. So what could I comment on?